Talk:United Jungle Accords
Treaty status The status of the treaty is currently under dispute, as referenced by this: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=114057&st=40#entry3055664 GPA post. As such, I am removing the statement the treaty has disbanded and the slashs over the GPA signatories, as well as the signatory of the Green Old Party, as they have not announced their withdrawal from the treaty either. CaladinK (talk • ) 06:08, November 27, 2012 (UTC) :Gotcha, question though.... How would GPA protect GOP under the terms of the UJA? Wouldn't that violate GPA's nuetrality? Rogal talk 06:36,11/27/2012 (UTC) ::We're exempt from the article's covering admissions and team sponsored protectorates as a neutral signatory; thus, we wouldn't. The fact of their continued participation in the treaty is probably more a technicality than anything else CaladinK (talk • ) 06:38, November 27, 2012 (UTC) :::Ah, gotcha so a "protectorate" in a sense. Rogal talk 06:43,11/27/2012 (UTC) ::::GPA as a neutral alliance does not vote on membership, and the document separates what a neutral signatory and a full signatory are in the third and fifth Accords. When the word signatory is not accompanied by neutral before it, it is referring to a full member, the full members who vote on admission of members and on the defense parts and on dissolution. GPA is not one of those full members.Goldielax25 (talk • ) 14:29, November 27, 2012 (UTC) :::::That is under dispute, as the treaty says that neutrals may choose what we wish to vote on; thus, if the GPA choose's to vote on the treaty's dissolution, and votes against it, then the treaty cannot be dissolved. CaladinK (talk • ) 11:32, November 28, 2012 (UTC) GOP confirmed the dissolution in the thread, and I talked with Blitz last night about clearing things up. Rather than continue to go back and forth on things, why not let things stand and then if they need to be amended in the future, they can be.Goldielax25 (talk • ) :I've partially reverted it back to where it was, I suggest that if GPA wishes to dispute this, their word should come from their President, rather than us reverting things back and forth.Goldielax25 (talk • ) 14:23, November 27, 2012 (UTC) ::Then I apologise for keeping GOP on the list; however, the fact there was a dispute is without question, and that, if nothing else, should go on it; such things are actually, imo, very interesting to read. I'm reverting it, again, though with the strikeout through GOP this time. CaladinK (talk • ) 20:02, November 27, 2012 (UTC) :::Could we get a lock until the dispute is resolved, and then we can finalize the page? CaladinK (talk • ) 04:58, November 28, 2012 (UTC) This article is inconsistent regarding the fate of the UJA. In the first paragraph, it says that the dissolution of the UJA is disputed. However, it never again says it that way. In fact, it many times says that the UJA was dissolved on November 20th, 2012. For example, "UJA was dissolved on November 20, 2012. GPA expressed desire to remain as a lone partial signatory of the treaty on that same day" and "11/20/2012: Viridian Entente and Pandemic, the last remaining full signatories of the document, agree to dissolve the United Jungle Accords. The Green Protection Agency expressed its desire to remain as a lone partial signatory in perpetuity." I think that this should be either corrected for these (and maybe other) instances or that a footnote should be made saying the the GPA disputes this. --Mudkip201 (talk • ) 21:17, April 7, 2014 (UTC) :Anyone can edit any article. Feel free to fix it. — RogalDorn 23:16, April 7, 2014 (UTC)